One need look no further than the logo of the Chicago White Sox to know how far we've yet to come in race relations in this country:<br><br><img src=http://home.earthlink.net/~imagebarn/images/sox.gif><br><br>Why is the hat black, yet the lettering white? It's obvious that that subliminal sports marketing is at work: by calling the team the White Sox, it is programming the public to believe that white people are better than black people. <br><br>What's next? Fried chicken, watermelon and Now or Laters being served at the concession stands at U.S. Cellular Field?<br><br>It's obvious that the team should be renamed something far less offensive. The Chicago Celery would be a perfect choice:<br><br><img src=http://suzanneh.com/1/picture_dictionary_food/celery.jpg><br><br>

There's a big difference between defamatory or malicious use of such names and/or icons, and promotional or branding applications. I don't think that the owners of the Redskins or the Braves named these teams as an overt expression of racism, or to denegrate Native Americans.<br><br>I see this as the Thinskins vs. the whiteman.<br><br>

Oh, I certainly don't think these organizations are overtly racist either. But when one group of people makes a cartoon of someone else's culture, they certainly shouldn't be surprised that the donor culture gets pissed off.<br><br>-- Charlie Alpha Roger Yankee Whiskey

Well then, death to all caricaturists! <br><br>Let's hear from PETA regarding those cartoonish dolphins and tigers and bulls. Hell, I think all New Englanders should be utterly outraged by that silly, aerodynamic militiaman!<br><br>Gimme a break. We're not talking about derogatory depictions here. Should the Redskins icon look more like a legitimate portrait of a Native American leader? Should the name be changed to an actual Native American word? I'd buy that argument. So why not make that point instead of this collective wedgie that, in the end, will only benefit the attorneys.<br><br>

You're blowing this out of proportion and I don't know why.<br><br>Let's use the University of Illinois Urbana Champaign as an example. They are called the "Fighting Illini" and their mascot during basketball and football games is a student dressed up in Native American ceremonial clothing who dances around the court or field. However much the current students and alumni guard Chief Illiniwek, the local Native Americans for whom he is named can't stand to see their heritage, religious and cultural, taken without permission and used during half-time of a basketball game, no matter how reverend the alumni say they are about the tribe's culture.<br><br>So what is the right thing to do in this situation? Does the U of I alumni have more a claim to a culture than the local tribes?<br><br>Sadly, they do, because they donate heavily to U of I's coffers and the Board of Trustees is going to capitulate to them no matter what, even if it means continuing to insult Native Americans.<br><br>-- Charlie Alpha Roger Yankee Whiskey

To use that formula, does that mean all of us white men should rise up and demand that TV shows depicting white men as mean or stupid. If so, say good bye to Gillians Island, Scrubs, Mash, NYPD Blue, Friends, 24, and the list goes on.<br><br>Why is it that if white males are singled out and made fun of, that's okay? Why is it okay for there to be a Black pride day, but even wear a White pride shirt and see what happens.<br>It's okay to be proud of being black, brown, gay, but don't you dare try to be proud of being white.<br><br>My point is, what's fare for one should be fare for all. Until the playing field is even, I don't feel much pull to defend a group just because they're not treated with God like reverence. <br><br>

There is a ton in your post to respond to. I essentially agree with you about fairness, but there is a difference between the situation I laid out and what you are presenting.<br><br>First of all, the television shows you mentioned don't depict white men exclusively as mean or stupid. There are so many varied portrayals of white men on television that you cannot isolate one character and derive a television network or media conglomerate's feelings about white men. What I am saying is that the numbers of white men on television afford them individuality. Now, let's say there are only four HIspanics on a network and three of them are criminals. Does that seem like a fair portrayal.<br><br>Black pride and white pride. Well, I don't need to tell you what the plain meaning of the words "white pride" mean to some people. We have the KKK to thank for that. But still there is another difference. White is a racial signifier which carries with it the whole baggage of American racism. So to claim white pride carries with it more meanings than intended. Notice though, how no one will ever be critical for having ethnic pride. If you're racially white, you probably also have some other ethnicity, whether it is European or otherwise. So no one will ever criticize Irish pride, or Italian pride because those signifiers carry with them only heritage, not race politics.<br><br>So now you're probably wondering why blacks are allowed to have pride in their racial signifier. That's because "black" is both a race and functionally an ethnicity. As an oppressed minority, African Americans have had to reclaim their own ethnicity given their history in the United States. That's why there's an African flag and other ethnic trappings created inside what is in all truths a socially constructed race. Worse yet, when black people attempt to go back and reclaim ethnic traits, they encounter little but scorn.<br><br>I assume you believe that people are too touchy about these things. I agree with you in that case. I think people don't know how to talk about race. It's as though all of the sudden, everybody has a stake in everything, feels cheated, and gets defensive.<br><br>-- Charlie Alpha Roger Yankee Whiskey

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> Now, let's say there are only four HIspanics on a network and three of them are criminals. Does that seem like a fair portrayal.<p><hr></blockquote><p>In 1974, Chico and the Man debuted which portrayed Chico as a hard working Latino willing to do what it took to get ahead, and the white dude, Ed, as a cranky, half crazy white drunk. <br><br><br><br>Does that seem like a fair portrayal? Personally I don't give a sh!t, but in the interest of the conversation, I think someone owes me an apologize for my hurt feelings.<br><br>****************<br>no sig

Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.

All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.